Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

You are here

13:0070(16)AR - Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District and NFFE Local No. 1124 -- 1983 FLRAdec AR

13:0070(16)AR - Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District and NFFE Local No. 1124 -- 1983 FLRAdec AR

[ v13 p70 ] 13:0070(16)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:

13 FLRA No. 16
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
Activity
and
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. 1124
Union
Case No. O-AR-265
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Robert W. Foster filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and
part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency filed an
opposition.
The dispute in this matter arose as the result of the announcement of
a vacancy in a position of lock and dam equipment mechanic. The
grievant applied for the position, but she was only rated qualified and
was not referred to the selecting official. She filed a grievance which
was ultimately submitted to arbitration.
The Arbitrator stated the substantive issue to be whether the
grievant had been harassed and discriminated against because of her sex
and, if so, had this caused the grievant not to receive proper
consideration for promotion. After a careful consideration of the
evidence and the arguments of the parties, the Arbitrator determined
that the grievant had not been denied proper consideration for promotion
because of discrimination. In conjunction with this determination, the
Arbitrator rejected the Union's contention that the Activity had failed
to produce requested documents. The Arbitrator ruled that management
had provided the Union with everything available that had been requested
and that documents no longer available had not been improperly
destroyed. Accordingly, as his award the Arbitrator denied the
grievance.
In its first exception the Union contends that the Activity refused
to produce needed evidence and that the Arbitrator's ruling in this
respect was harmful error. The Authority concludes that this exception
provides no basis for finding the award deficient. As noted, the
Arbitrator expressly rejected this contention in ruling that management
had provided the Union with everything requested that was available, and
the Union's unsubstantiated allegation to the contrary as repeated in
its exception fails to establish that the award is deficient.
In its second exception the Union contends that the Arbitrator was
biased or partial. However, this exception is totally devoid of any
substantiation and provides no basis for finding the award deficient.
Department of the Army, Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Air
Assault) and Fort Campbell, Fort Campbell, Kentucky and American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 2022, 7 FLRA No. 6 (1981).
In its third exception the Union contends that the award does not
draw its essence from the parties' collective bargaining agreement. In
support the Union essentially argues that the Arbitrator erroneously
framed the issue presented and that the Arbitrator made numerous errors.
The Authority concludes that this exception provides no basis for
finding the award deficient. The Union fails to establish that the
Arbitrator erroneously framed the issue presented. With no apparent
joint stipulation of the issue submitted to the Arbitrator, the
Arbitrator appropriately determined the issue to be heard and the award
is directly responsive to and properly confined to precisely that issue.
See Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Administration, Louisville, Kentucky District and National Federation of
Federal Employees, Local 1790, 10 FLRA No. 73 (1982). Similarly, the
Union's assertion that the Arbitrator erred in numerous respects
constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's
reasoning and conclusions and an attempt to relitigate the merits of
this case before the Authority and fails to establish that the award
does not draw its essence from the agreement. See, e.g., Department of
the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, Region VII and National Treasury
Employees Union, 7 FLRA No. 49 (1981).
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington,
D.C., September 22, 1983
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY